Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Jun 9 2013

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive

Defendants are alleged to have advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software after Microsoft warned them of the consequences, infringing Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks.

Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive et al

Court Case Number: 4:13-cv-00079-TWP-WGH
File Date: Thursday, June 06, 2013
Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: James Dimos of Frost Brown Todd LLC
Defendant: Mister Harddrive, Mister HardDrive Wipe and Restore, Mark Cady
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Description and Representation, Common Law Unfair Competition, For Imposition of a Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits, Accounting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr

May 20 2013

Indiana Judge: Dark Knight Rises didn’t infringe on CLEAN SLATE trademark

Judge Philip Simon has ruled that Warner Bros.’s “The Dark Knight Rises” did not infringe on the trademarked name of a computer security program, Clean Slate. As a brief recap, Plaintiff Fortres Grand, an Indiana corporation, has sold security software under the mark CLEAN SLATE since 2000. In Defendant Warner Bros’ latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, Batman promises to obtain a software program called “Clean Slate” that will erase a person’s criminal history from every computer database in the world. This apparently caused hundreds of internet references for the fictional movie software, to which Plaintiff objected, prompting the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, Judge Simon has found no trademark infringement, focusing his opinion (full Opinion and Order below) largely on the doctrine of “reverse confusion.” I’ve provided a few excerpts from the Opinion below but you’ll want to read the full text for the Court’s complete reverse confusion analysis. The Court also rules that Warner Bros.’s use of the term “Clean Slate” is protected by the First Amendment.

There’s an obvious problem with Fortres Grand’s argument that this is a worst-case scenario of reverse confusion: Warner Bros. “clean slate” software only exists in the fictional world of Gotham; it does not exist in reality. This may seem to be a small point, but it has big ramifications for the consumer confusion analysis, which become apparent once you realize the argument that Fortres Grand has not made – and cannot make.

Here, there is simply no plausible claim that consumers will make “mistaken purchasing decisions” about the “tangible product” being sold in the marketplace: no one looking for Fortres Grand’s software is likely to mistakenly buy a ticket to The Dark Knight Rises.

Opinion and Order:

 

 

[View the original Complaint.]

Fortres Grand Corporation v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00535-PPS-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Fortres Grand Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher R. Putt of May Oberfell Lorber
Defendant: Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

May 9 2013

Trial Scheduled for Indiana’s First Keyword Advertising Case

Indiana’s first keyword advertising case is now set for trial. However, don’t hold your breath if you’re waiting for an answer to whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement. The Angie’s List/ServiceMagic trial won’t take place for over a year.

On May 6, a Scheduling Order set a bench trial for October 6, 2014 (at 9:30 AM in Room #216, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Sarah Evans Barker). A settlement conference was held  between the parties in February 2013 but no settlement was reached. Based on the importance of this question to the parties involved, I expect this case to go to trial, however long that may take.

In the meantime, you can review the Answer to Complaint and Answer to Counterclaims below. Stay tuned for updates.

DEFENDANT SERVICEMAGIC, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS:

ANGIE’S LIST’S ANSWER TO SERVICEMAGIC’S COUNTERCLAIMS:

Apr 24 2013

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Manchester University v. Sportswear

Manchester University Inc v. Sportswear Inc

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00120-RLM-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Plaintiff: Manchester University Inc
Plaintiff Counsel: D Randall Brown of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Sportswear Inc
Cause: Trademark Infringement; False Designation of Origin, False Description, and/or False Representation; Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition,
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

Apr 13 2013

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – XP Innovation v. Ian Smith

This appears to be Indiana’s first “Sponsored” ad case. Anyone who uses Facebook has seen the “Sponsored” ads on the right side of their screen. Those ads are one of the primary ways that Facebook makes money. Similar to the “keyword advertising” cases revolving around Google’s keyword searches, it now appears the time has come to litigate over what constitutes an acceptable use of someone else’s trademark in one of Facebook’s sponsored ads.

Quick summary of the facts:

1. Defendant ran the following Sponsored ad on Facebook:

Dans Comp Ad

2. Clicking the link takes users to a separate website where they complete a survey and enter their name, email and phone number in hopes of winning a free Dan’s Comp bicycle. Due to the prominent use of the Dan’s Comp logo, that website appears to be affiliated with Dan’s Comp (although it is not).

3. Nobody ever wins a bicycle.

4. Dan’s Comp’s reputation is damaged and the consuming public is potentially harmed.

Stay tuned for updates.

XP Innovation LLC v. Ian Smith

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00106-RLY-WGH
File Date: Friday, April 12, 2013
Plaintiff: XP Innovation LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Amie P. Carter, Louis T. Perry of Baker & Daniels
Defendant: Ian Smith
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

Mar 23 2013

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Royal Purple v. Liqui Moly GmbH

Here’s an interesting case involving a color trademark. Plaintiff Royal Purple, based in Indianapolis, owns several trademark registrations for the color purple  in connection with high-performance lubricants. The Defendant, German-based Liqui Moly, is accused of selling lubricants with containers/packaging that is purple.

images

Royal Purple LLC v. Liqui Moly GmbH

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00492-SEB-DML
File Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Royal Purple LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, Olivia M. Fleming of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Liqui Moly GmbH
Cause: Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin; Dilution; Common Law Trademark Infringement; Common Law Unfair Competition; Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Jan 10 2013

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Allison Transmission v. Cross Oil Refining & Marketing

Allison Transmission Inc. v. Cross Oil Refining & Marketing Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00047-WTL-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Plaintiff: Allison Transmission Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Dwight D. Lueck of Barnes & Thornburg
Defendant: Cross Oil Refining & Marketing Inc., Martin Resource Management Corporation, Doolittle Oil Company Inc.
Cause: Infringement of Registered Trademark, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, False Description of Goods
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Nov 17 2012

Indiana Right of Publicity Litigation Update – The Estate of Bette Davis v. Erickson Beamon

The Estate of Bette Davis et al v. Erickson Beamon, Ltd.

Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-01687-JMS-DKL
File Date: Friday, November 16, 2012
Plaintiff: The Estate of Betty Davis, CMG Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore John Minch of Sovich Minch LLP
Defendant: Erickson Beamon, Ltd.
Cause: Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity, California State Statutory Right of Publicity, Other Statutory and Common Law Rights of Publicity, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victims’ Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

Nov 8 2012

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Three Rivers Archery Supply v. Parker Compound Bows

Three Rivers Archery Supply Inc et al v. Parker Compound Bows Inc

Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00390-PPS-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Plaintiff: Three Rivers Archery Supply Inc, Dale Karch, Sandra Karch
Plaintiff Counsel: Melanie L Farr, Holly A Brady of Haller & Colvin PC, Todd T Taylor of Taylor & Aust PC
Defendant: Parker Compound Bows Inc
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey

Sep 20 2012

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros Entertainment

Here’s a fun case. Plaintiff, an Indiana corporation, has sold security software under the mark CLEAN SLATE since 2000. In Defendant Warner Bros’ latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, Batman promises to obtain a software program called CLEAN SLATE that will erase a person’s criminal history from every computer database in the world. This has apparently caused hundreds of internet references for the fictional movie software, to which Plaintiff objects.

What do you think is the likely outcome of this case? Can it survive a Motion to Dismiss? Is Warner Bros really using CLEAN SLATE as a trademark?

It also shines a spotlight on that magic moment in the marketing department where an invention titled “Targeted Data Detection and Elimination Algorithm” becomes…CLEAN SLATE! [Note: The patent application is from movie promotional materials. It is not real.]

Fortres Grand Corporation v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00535-PPS-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Fortres Grand Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher R. Putt of May Oberfell Lorber
Defendant: Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein